We now have in our hands the document that confirms our charge that
Auschwitz-Birkenau is about to be sold out by Miles Lerman, chairman of the United
States Holocaust Memorial Museum, in collaboration with the coalition of
Jewish organizations he has drawn into his scheme.

The document is entitled, "Declaration Concerning Principles for
Implementation of Program Oscwiecimski." Section 6 deals with the "Presence
of Post-Period Elements," as follows: "Recognize as a paramount concern the
delicate and sensitive problem created by the introduction of religious
symbols in Auschwitz-Birkenau since its liberation in January, 1945. These
symbols have created needless tensions in the past. Henceforth [italics
added], there should be no introduction of post World War II elements on the
site within the internationally-recognized UNESCO Protection Zones- including
the introduction of religious symbols without the unanimous approval of the
signatories. This prohibition does not include museological and educational
elements."

The evidence is overwhelming. The word "henceforth" is the key. It
legitimizes and lets stand forever the existing violations on the site,
including the Birkenau church with a large cross on top and in front, as well
as the eight meter cross alongside the old "convent." It undermines the
UNESCO agreement, which declares that Auschwitz-Birkenau, as well as a 1000
meter protected zone around its perimeter, are to remain inviolate. The
tactic of Section 6 is transparent: It is nothing less than to declare that
with respect to the existing religious symbols and structures, the UNESCO
agreement will be circumvented, and that the violations that are already in
place on the site will be grandfathered into the impending agreement.
Moreover, Section 6 undercuts the "Solemn Agreement" signed by four Catholic
Cardinals and European Jewish leaders, declaring that "There shall be no
permanent place of Catholic worship at Auschwitz-Birkenau."

This is an intolerable desecration of the largest Jewish graveyard on the
planet. How dare Lerman and his associates allow crosses and churches to
stand in this place of extreme Jewish martyrdom, forever distorting the truth
about what took place there? While churches and crosses are places and
emblems of holiness, they do not belong in Auschwitz-Birkenau. In Birkenau,
the death factory of Auschwitz, approximately 95 percent of the victims--over
1.1 million human being--were Jews. There, the German commandant's
headquarters has been turned into a church, and a huge cross casts its shadow
over a camp marked by incalculable Jewish suffering. The impression left--and
the impression that will be left for generations to come as a result of this
deal-- is that this place of overwhelmingly Jewish death, with its barracks
and gas chambers, is a place of Christian or perhaps universal martyrdom.

On top of this, Section 6 authorizes the introduction of "museological and
educational elements," terms so vague and ambiguous as to essentially permit
the introduction of anything, including the projected visitors center with a
fast food restaurant to be built directly across from the gates of Auschwitz,
corroding the dignity of the dead.

What adds to the horror of this looming sell-out is yet another recent
revelation: That Lerman, the driving force behind this plan, has been
operating in secret not only from the public at large, but also from those
very Jewish organizations that he has pulled into the negotiations to cover
himself when the Polish government invited him, as chairman of a federal
agency, to participate in drafting a final agreement on Auschwitz-Birkenau.
We have learned that in recent days some leaders of those organizations have
grown increasingly alarmed that Lerman has not fully shared with them the
specifics of the deal. They are beginning to question seriously whether they
will be able to sign this document.

Their alarm has been further exacerbated by the recent withdrawal of
Professors Robert Jan Van Pelt and Deborah Dwork from their Holocaust Museum
sponsored commission to draw up a master plan for the Auschwitz-Birkenau
complex. Professors Van Pelt and Dwork are the foremost experts on the
development, architecture, physical and functional history of the Auschwitz-
Birkenau death camp. Scholars of impeccable integrity, Professors Van Pelt
and Dwork know where every building was and is on the site, and what each one
was used for during the camp's killing operations. As they watched Lerman
abandon the plan they had drawn up, as they watched Lerman lock out Jewish
experts from the decision-making process leaving it solely to the Polish team,
as they watched Lerman allow political expedience to take precedence over the
preservation of the site, and as they watched Lerman's greater interest in
signing the document regardless of its substance, Professors Von Pelt and
Dwork dissociated themselves from the effort.

What Mr. Lerman must understand is that he heads a federal, not a Jewish,
institution, and, as such, has no mandate or right to be negotiating the final
status of the largest Jewish graveyard in the world. The federal government
itself, and, in particular, members of congress, should be asking
themselves--perhaps through a congressional investigation--what business
Lerman has in these negotiations, and whether he is inappropriately using the
museum's federal status to sign documents in the international arena when he
has no legal authority to do so. The Polish government would likely never have
been in these talks without the federal imprimatur that Lerman brings.
Lerman, for his part, abuses his federal mandate, spends taxpayer dollars,
sullies the good name of the United States, and plays fast and loose with the
memory of the dead by dragging the museum into such deals.

And what Jewish leaders, including Abraham Foxman of the Anti Defamation
League, David Harris of the American Jewish Committee, Ernest Michel of the
Lauder Foundation, and others must understand is that if they sign this
document, they will forever be held accountable for having been complicit in
violating the memory of the dead. Though they have ceded the lion's share of
the effort to Lerman, if the outcome renders permanent churches, crosses, and
the mockery of a fast food restaurant, it will be they--these Jewish
leaders--who will be responsible. They will have been accomplices to this
sell-out. Its consequences will be on their heads. Now they know the details
of the deal. Now they know how Lerman has been co-opting them. Now they know
the position that Professors Van Pelt and Dwork have taken. If they are so
dazzled by high-level negotiations and the prospect of rubbing shoulders with
celebrities at a gala signing (one prominent senator has informed us that he
has already been invited to the signing ceremony in July), they should keep in
mind, as a cautionary tale, the example of Jewish leaders who, more than fifty
years ago, were so swept up by the glamor of the White House and an audience
with the president, that they were pressured into remaining silent.

We, for our part, shall never remain silent. We shall not rest. In 1989,
when we demonstrated at the "convent," there were those who may have disagreed
with our tactics, but there was consensus that the nuns must move. Today,
nearly a decade later, these same voices have been stilled. They have been
compromised by Lerman's lust for a deal. They are in danger of becoming
knowing accomplices in the betrayal of the six million. While we are loathe
to speak out against other Jewish leaders, someone must speak out for those
who cannot speak for themselves. Even if the signing moves ahead this summer
as expected, we shall never recognize the legitimacy of this agreement. We
shall continue to fight it. We do not recognize the authority of Lerman and
company to sign this deal. They do not speak for us, the living, and they do
not speak for the dead.

Rabbi Avi Weiss is president of the Coalition for Jewish Concerns/Amcha and
senior rabbi of the Hebrew Institute, Riverdale, New York. He is a long-time
activist in Auschwitz-Birkenau preservation efforts. Tel: (718) 796-1135

After many long years of struggle to replace Law 32 of 1964 on
Associations and Private Institutions with a law permitting freedom
of association, the result is probably the same law with a
different number ... NGOs have had a simple request: to keep
non-government organizations non-governmental. The government has
replied by maintaining the conditions which subject
non-governmental organisations to full government control.

A new draft law, prepared in secrecy, will assure government
control over NGOs. New penalties of up to two years in prison
and/or a fine LE10,000 are threatened for organizations that work
as associations without being registered as such, or collect funds
without government permission.

Many people believed that NGOs were the only available avenue of
participation in public life. In the past few years, NGOs,
particularly those working in the field of human rights, have
played a major role in struggles for freedom, justice, and positive
change. For example, human Rights groups supported journalists in
their legitimate fight against Law 93 of 1995, and together managed
to defeat it.

The right to freedom of association is guaranteed by the
Constitution, which only restricts the right in cases of
paramilitary or underground organisations, or those working against
society.

While NGOs strive to widen the margins of democracy and help
develop their country, the government promises prison sentences and
large fines. Have these years been wasted for Egypt's NGO
community? Or is the government about to waste another opportunity
to allow peaceful and democratic expression?

"Al-Quds is weeping; oh Quds: come back to us, to the good people.
I shall come to you through any door and shall shout and the sky
will hear my voice."

the lyric, written by Miriam Bakir, a 14 year-old Iraqi, bedecked
a painting of the Dome of the Rock -- one of 50 paintings
portraying life in Jerusalem.

The exhibition was part of a two-day even in the Cairo Opera House
paying tribute to and remembering the holy city on the 31st
anniversary of its 7 June 1967 occupation.

The event, titled "Jerusalem: past, present, and future" brought
together more than 100 Egyptian and Palestinian intellectuals and
artists. "We mark a conflict that has not been settled, an
aggression that has never stopped, and a peace that, until now, has
not been achieved," Gaber Asfour, secretary general of the Supreme
Council of Culture, told the gathering.

Although the event was held under the slogan, "Jerusalem is Arab,"
participants opposed any discussion of politics. "Our case against
Israel is not political because, theoretically speaking, agreements
have been signed between the two parties," Yasser Abd-Rabbou, the
Palestinian culture minister, told Al-Ahram Weekly. "Rather, it is
the culture and art which unite Arabs and morally uplift the
nation."

One step which will boost cultural cooperation and preserve the
Palestinian identity is the establishment of the first Palestinian
museum in Gaza. "Egypt has committed itself to establishing this
museum to keep alive the memory of dispossession,"
[IMRA NOTE: including Egypt's 1948-1967 occupation?] Mohamed
Ghoneim, first under-secretary at the Ministry of Culture, told the
Weekly.

... Although participants vowed that politics would not play a part
in the event, politics kept creeping in. There was criticism of the
Arab political discourse on the city, with one speaker saying it
had been confined to resolutions passed by Arab summit conferences
that do not provide a strategy for regaining the city, whether by
peaceful or military means.

... Bishop Akram Lamie, a professor of theology, dismissed
rabbinical claims that the return of the Jews to Jerusalem was the
realisation of a Divine promise. This, he said is an "abuse of
religion" to achieve political and economic goals for the state of
Israel.

Sohad Al-Qlibu, board member of the University of Jerusalem, warned
that the Likud government "wants to cleanse Jerusalem of its Arab
inhabitants." For the past 30 years, she said, Israel has
prevented the construction of Arab housing in East Jerusalem. Arabs
are being pushed out of the city ...."

[IMRA NOTE: The Arab population of Jerusalem has increased more
rapidly than the Jewish population and Arafat's Mufti of Jerusalem
has urgently appealed to Arabs to move into, to squat in, empty
apartments in eastern Jerusalem.]

IMRA: Why is it so quiet in Jerusalem? First there was Ateret
Cohanim and then Silwan and instead of thousands of Arabs rising up
in protest there's almost no reaction.

Al-Batsh: There was the most important meeting today of the PLC on
one topic - a no confidence vote against Arafat and all the people,
the whole government, were there to see what would happen with the
no confidence vote.

IMRA: And what happened?

Al-Batsh: Yasser Arafat sent a letter asking for ten days - to
the 25th of the month for him to set up a new government. So all
people were busy watching to see what would happen with the no
confidence vote today.

IMRA: Is Arafat's problem with the PLC more how he runs the
government or his relations with Israel?

Al-Batsh: Everything. First of all there is politics, economics,
the security of the Palestinians. There are many things.

IMRA: In Israel people ask if there is an alternative to
Netanyahu. Is there an alternative to Arafat? Someone who can
take his place?

Al-Batsh: At this stage I don't think that one could take his
place. This is something sensitive. It depends on the PLO, the
Fatah Executive and the PLC.

Imra's Weekly Commentary on Arutz 718th June, 1998by Aaron Lerner
(Broadcast in English on Thursday night's at 10:00 PM on 97.1 FM in
Jerusalem, and 97.3 FM throughout Israel - recording available on
http://www.a7.org)

Much has been said about the impact on the ground of a 13 percent
withdrawal: the isolated settlements, the creation of more safe
havens for terrorists and, ultimately, the critical expansion of
the areas which Arafat can try to include in a Palestinian state
next May, at the end of the 5 year interim period.

All of these concerns are genuine and real. And yet, there are
those who counsel that the withdrawal should be accepted as an
inevitable fact and that instead of fighting the withdrawal, we
should participate in trying to minimize the costs.

The irony is that months ago when Prime Minister Netanyahu asked
the IDF to come up with a 13 percent withdrawal which would not
hurt the settlements they came to the conclusion, after investing
considerable time in the project, that it was impossible to carry
out a 13 percent withdrawal without hurting the settlements. At
the time I hoped that Netanyahu carried out the exercise so that he
could prove to his critics that his objections to such a move were
based on the cold hard unavoidable facts on the ground. Now I
don't know.

And while I can assure you that if and when Netanyahu does announce
a 13 percent withdrawal he will serve it with a healthy serving of
misinformation, this won't protect him - and us - from one of the
most serious consequences of such a move.

I have followed Netanyahu's technique from the front row seats of
the Likud Central Committee meetings which he typically uses to
launch major policy changes. The phony speech at the Cinerama
after he returned from his first meeting with Arafat. The empty
words about reciprocity at the Tel Aviv Exhibition Grounds before
his cabinet approved the first withdrawal after Hebron. (That's
right - many forget that after Hebron Netanyahu pushed through
cabinet approval of a withdrawal without Palestinian compliance.
The only reason the troops didn't move was that Arafat rejected it
as too small.)

But all the canned music, all the party hacks, all the half truths
and even temporary stock market surges, won't be able to change one
critical effect of this capitulation:
the loss of credibility in the eyes of Israel's supporters.

Since his election, a core of influential supporters in America -
both columnists and politicians - have staked their professional
reputations on the word of Binyamin Netanyahu. When he said
"national security" they took it as the gospel truth. When
Netanyahu said that a 13 percent withdrawal was simply impossible
they wrote columns and made speeches and signed letters supporting
his position and charging the Clinton Administration with
endangering Israel's security.

When Netanyahu explained that Israel's insistence on Palestinian
compliance was not a bargaining tactic but instead a genuine
requirement for peace these friends of Israel spread the word in
a way that Israel's own information program could never hope to.

Yes. A properly orchestrated domestic campaign with enough
misinformation and disinformation can probably yield Netanyahu
enough support to push a withdrawal through a public referendum.
But none of this will stop that core of influential American
supporters from turning their backs on Netanyahu. For while the
domestic fog may comfort Netanyahu's coalition partners, these
important supporters will know that they have been manipulated.
That by accepting Netanyahu's claims at face value they themselves
have damaged their own credibility.

It won't take long after such a withdrawal. A few weeks. At most
a few months. And Netanyahu will find himself again having to
explain to the world why the demand that Israel withdraw from "X"
is unacceptable. How withdrawing from "X" compromises Israel's
vital security interests. But those American columnists and
legislators will think twice and three times before echoing
Netanyahu's words. And without this critical support, Israel will
find itself unable to offset Clinton's pressure with congressional
support.

The withdrawal being debated today is not just another step down
the Oslo path. It represents instead crossing what can be arguably
called the last red line.

For once Netanyahu abandons what he has clearly and explicitly
termed vital security interests, he will find it next to impossible
to convince anyone that other security based territorial
requirements - or for that matter any requirements - are genuine
and non-negotiable.

Does Netanyahu realize this? I am sure he has been told this. But
I don't know if he is listening. I can only hope, for our sakes and
for the sakes of our children and future generations, that Binyamin
Netanyahu has the sense and the will to look beyond the intrigues
and machinations surrounding the interim withdrawal being
considered today and soberly considers the potentially catastrophic
costs which acquiescing on such a clearly stated security - based
position would have in the not too distant future.

The Israel Resource Review is brought to you by
the Israel Resource, a media firm based at the Bet Agron Press Center in
Jerusalem, and the Gaza Media Center under the juristdiction of the Palestine
Authority.
You can contact us on media@actcom.co.il.